D'Angelico article in today's New York Times

[Max405]

I'll prolly get boo'd off the stage here but I think the Korean copies are amazing. I've played 2 original dangelico's off the wall at a famous shop here in nj and wasn't impressed. I honestly don't know what I like better, my Wes or my excel . Trust me I can snob it up with the best of them but I think the Korean copies are pretty damn good. JD

[Jabberwocky]

Lest we forget, there have been more than two batches of D'A' replicas before Vestax. Heritage, Triggs, Comins and Art Valdez produced New Yorker reps. If I were in the market for a D'A' (and I'm not) I would look into a copy built by one of the the above.

There is also Michael Lewis. And Bryant Trenier will soon be offering his interpretation of it, 18" lower bout. Ask Bryant about it.

[Jabberwocky]

Weren't these re-issue D'As covered pretty extensively here and at TGP last year when they first came out? There was a vid of Pisani and someone else playing fairly poor blues using one. . What you ended up with is some hand made solid wood archtops by Gene Baker for $10k+ and some Korean lam guitars for around $1200-1500. Just like we've had two batches of D'A's before, Japanese Vestex and other Koreans. Just like we have Korean D'Aquistos by Aria.
This is old news.

New spiel. Pisani has given up on the "scanned it (the original D'Angelico) under an MRI to study the insides" line which someone pointed out was ridiculous as MRI requires that the object contain water.

I wish them well though but wonder at whom they are targetting the designs. The teen market may find the florid headstock and tailpiece designs too much like Great-Gramps. The key demographic of 25 to 49 will find no resonance with the music-makers of its generation. The 50s and over know them as a D'Angelico branding exercise and those with the nous, inclination and means will order one up from Bryant Trenier.

My word of advice to Steve Pisani is to study Bill Collings closely: a very smart businessman as well as a great guitar maker and designer. And I may add, Howard Paul of Benedetto Workshop, another smart businessman.

As for the Les Paul, Henry J. and company shipped out over 5000 R9 Historics/Hysterics, Collector's Choice, Artist Signatures, Heavy Aged Benchmarks, Tom Murphy Aged, Painted 20th Anniversaries, etc. in 2013 alone. That number does not include the other Rs (8,7,6,5,4, Customs, Flos, etc.). At an average street price of $6000 each, that's not bad business for a $200 pawnshop failure.

Without the Les Paul Historics, and the ES-3xx, Big G is burnt toast. The rest is just gravy. Steve Pisani would do well to study Henry J. too. Flamed maple, any figure you want it. Dark Cherry Burst aniline dye, faded any tone you want it. Here, take a dozen.

[Jabberwocky]

>Well he wasn't impressed by the tops on some of D'angelico's work. Something about the plates not being cut and glued properly.

Yes John DA sometimes joined the center seams on his tops a bit sloppy and already put cleats on it to reinforce. Thats a bit sub par construction wise, and was what Bob Benedetto comments on in his book. A mere detail though.

Dangelicos construction details like mitres, finishes, etc all at times are a bit sloppy. He wasnt known for meticulous construction (Jimmy Daquisto was) - but he was known for great sounding guitars

Isn't it true that John D'Angelico even lined the insides of one of his archtop with green snooker-table baize at the request of his client? For New York City-based players back then it was easier to just drop in and order one up from John D'Angelico than from a workshop in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Much as one would go to a tailor in one's hood than buy a tony suit off the rack of Hugo Boss. D'Angelico was the Brioni of his day.

[iim7V7IM7]

There are a number of contemporary luthiers making carved archtop guitars of their own design customized for their client's needs. Why would anyone buy one of these copies at that price point? While I have the deepest respect for historic luthiers like John D. And Jimmy D., I personally would rather work with a contemporary luthier on their own designs than pay someone to copy someone else's past work. I think some of the best today's guitars will hold up against those built in the past. Also, the idea that one can copy by dimension is underpinned by the flawed factory concept of building to dimension vs. by stiffness, deflection and tap tone which has to do with individual sets of wood. This rabbit hole is also popular in the world of classical guitars (e.g. Build me a Torres, Hauser, Fleta, Romanillos etc.). It is a great place for a luthier to start and learn, but eventually they need to find their own voice.

[Patrick2]

There are a number of contemporary luthiers making carved archtop guitars of their own design customized for their client's needs. Why would anyone buy one of these copies at that price point? While I have the deepest respect for historic luthiers like John D. And Jimmy D., I personally would rather work with a contemporary luthier on their own designs than pay someone to copy someone else's past work. I think some of the best today's guitars will hold up against those built in the past. Also, the idea that one can copy by dimension is underpinned by the flawed factory concept of building to dimension vs. by stiffness, deflection and tap tone which has to do with individual sets of wood. This rabbit hole is also popular in the world of classical guitars (e.g. Build me a Torres, Hauser, Fleta, Romanillos etc.). It is a great place for a luthier to start and learn, but eventually they need to find their own voice.

It's just a matter of individual choices, wants, needs, indulgences . . etc.. Collectors have been buying copies of original works of the masters for quite a long time. The reasons they choose to do so vary. Master pieces have been turned into prints . . etc. Ladies buy copies of uber expensive designer dresses and gowns that they see on The Red Carpet at Hollywood awards shows. NBA players walk around with 3 carat CZs hanging off their ears . . instead of the real deal.

I do agree (somewhat) with your sentiment, as it relates to players' gigging guitars. But, I disagee as it relates to collectors' wanting to add a recreated work of art to their collection. Why not? John D'Angelico created works of art. Functional works of art . . but, art none the less. I'm sure he didn't intend for it to turn out that way . . but, it did.

However, even for the players . . I can certainly imaging where a Phil Upchurch might have picked up his repro D'A just to try it out. Then come to the conclusion; "Wow! What a great guitar. I just have to have this to gig and record with". Phil loves his D'A copy. So too do other recording jazz guitarists. My *good friend* jabberwocky mentioned Michael Lewis. WOW! Talking about taking a work of art to the next level! His D'A copies are off the charts beautiful.

A great guitar, is a great guitar, is a great guitar. It shouldn't matter to a working guitarist what it looks like . . who's design it copies, or whose name is on the head stock . . and, more often than not, it doesn't.

But, like you . . I really don't like the bull-shit marketing hype behind what a guy like Pisani says. "We're allowing people to play a guitar they normally wouldn't be able to play" What a crock-o-shit THAT is!!!

I absolutely adore my two Heritage copies. The New Yorker is describably great. The Excel is . . indescribably great. The Excel is probably one of the best arch top guitars I've seen come out of Heritage . . . and I've seen quite a few. I also love the fact that they were recreated by some of the same people who built some of the other iconic jazz arch tops.

[iim7V7IM7]

Patrick,

I think you make a fair point about the desirability of John's classic art deco influenced designs. They are indeed beautiful. I can indeed understand someone wanting one and not being able to afford an original.

I think that the point that I was attempting to make was twofold:

1) That scanning one of John's guitars to obtain an exact dimensional assessment for purposes of recreation misses the point of a luthier made instrument. Each guitar should have differing dimensions based upon the properties wood used and client's goals for the instrument. What they are decribing is a way to make a factory instrument (by dimension).

2) Taking nothing from John's great contribution to luthiery, we live in a period were there are more great luthiers than ever before who are interpreting the archtop and all building upon the learnings past. I suppose it is a preference, but at the >$10k price point, I personally much prefer to own a luthier's original interpretation of an archtop customized to my playing needs. To me, it is what makes it unique.

My $.02

It's just a matter of individual choices, wants, needs, indulgences . . etc.. Collectors have been buying copies of original works of the masters for quite a long time. The reasons they choose to do so vary. Master pieces have been turned into prints . . etc. Ladies buy copies of uber expensive designer dresses and gowns that they see on The Red Carpet at Hollywood awards shows. NBA players walk around with 3 carat CZs hanging off their ears . . instead of the real deal.

I do agree (somewhat) with your sentiment, as it relates to players' gigging guitars. But, I disagee as it relates to collectors' wanting to add a recreated work of art to their collection. Why not? John D'Angelico created works of art. Functional works of art . . but, art none the less. I'm sure he didn't intend for it to turn out that way . . but, it did.

However, even for the players . . I can certainly imaging where a Phil Upchurch might have picked up his repro D'A just to try it out. Then come to the conclusion; "Wow! What a great guitar. I just have to have this to gig and record with". Phil loves his D'A copy. So too do other recording jazz guitarists. My *good friend* jabberwocky mentioned Michael Lewis. WOW! Talking about taking a work of art to the next level! His D'A copies are off the charts beautiful.

A great guitar, is a great guitar, is a great guitar. It shouldn't matter to a working guitarist what it looks like . . who's design it copies, or whose name is on the head stock . . and, more often than not, it doesn't.

But, like you . . I really don't like the bull-shit marketing hype behind what a guy like Pisani says. "We're allowing people to play a guitar they normally wouldn't be able to play" What a crock-o-shit THAT is!!!

I absolutely adore my two Heritage copies. The New Yorker is describably great. The Excel is . . indescribably great. The Excel is probably one of the best arch top guitars I've seen come out of Heritage . . . and I've seen quite a few. I also love the fact that they were recreated by some of the same people who built some of the other iconic jazz arch tops.

[Rip VanWinkle]

I'm been watching this thread with a great deal of interest. As a newbie to this site I suppose it's time for me to jump into the deep end of the pool.

I just retired and one of my bucket list desires was to finally learn to play jazz chord melody. Naturally, this led to GAS because you have to play it on an arch top which I didn't have in the fleet. So, I did a bunch of research online and visited some guitar shops and tried to educate myself on what was available. ( I've been gone from the world of guitars for about 15 years...hence the internet handle). Eastman, Loar, Peerless, Epiphone....etc. I vaguely knew the D'Angelico myth but was surprised to see that the guitars were available in a different form. The cynic in me said well, yeah, at the end of the day it's still MIK....but man... they are good looking! Well, it's a different time. What if someone who really knew something about guitars spent the money to do it right with high quality parts and spent enough in Korea to demand the very best work. Why not? No, it won't be worth anything later on...better try to buy something known and used. How about used custom made to order? Well, I come from a background of spending hundreds not thousands of dollars on a good guitar. The difference between $1299.00 and $5,000 or more is a lot of dough. So, I bought the EXL-1 and I love it! It plays great and sounds perfect through my old Magnatone Ec-1. The fit and finish is first class.

Because my career background was in sales/marketing in both the music and wine business I've been intrigued by the "new" D'Angelico story. I think these guys are doing it right. They've got a great story...which gets them in the New York Times, by the way, unlike Heritage, Jim Triggs, Michael Lewis, Ibanez, Eastman, Loar, Peerless as B.S. as it is to working guitar players and serious hobbyists. The reproductions at $10,000 are window dressing....the real business is in the $1200.00 to $2,000 price point. That's where they are introducing the new designs based on the "John D'Angelico aesthestic" as they call it....even a bass guitar...and a occasional copy like the EXl-59. None of this works if the guitars are sh*t.....and I think they are far from it. So, you may hate the marketing but how do you feel about the guitars?

[Patrick2]

iim7 . . I think it's more than just the affordability aspect of it. Many who own replicas of D'As can indeed afford the real thing. I among them. The collective value of my guitar collection would allow me to buy more than one original D'A. It would also allow me to buy an original '59 burst . . but, I own an R9 instead. I could cite other similar examples within my collection. It's a matter of priorities. For myelf, I prioritize owning many wonderful high quality guitars (even if some of them are replicas (tributes) of the originals) over owning very few (or one) of the originals.

I totally agree with your comments on scanning and reproducing off of the scan results. Cookier cutter models just don't work in the world of musical instruments crafted from wood. The functional word being crafted, as opposed to assembled. As you said . . each billet of wood is unique from any other. Each piece of spruce needs to be shaped, refined and tuned, based upon its unique tonal attributes. Can't do that from a blue print alone. That's what I was referencing in another thread on D'As . . when I spoke about the differences between the pressed solid spruce tops on thr Vestax D'As as compared to the carved solid tops on the higher end D'A replicas. The gentleman I was exchanging with on that thread called it snobbery. Nonsense! It's the difference between skilled craftsmanship and assembly line knock off production.

I take great joy in realizing that the the tops and backs on both of my D'A replicas were taken to Aaron Cowles shop for his finishing refinements . . aka tap tuning. I truly believe that both of my Heritage D'As are in the same realm of quality as any of the guitars currently being built by the top name boutique builders out there today. Mine just happen to perfectly resemble those of the original master. I'm OK with that. :-) When I look at and play my D'As, I see and hear them as a reflection of, and a tribute to, John D'Angelico, Heritage and Aaron Cowles, collectively. How cool is that!?!?

[John A.]

You know, I see much more of a point of the Vestax or Korean copies, or the new reproduction of the obvious Guild body laminate in the NYT photo, than the $10k Excel this guy is peddling. Those are working man gigging guitars that look nicer, built in reputable/renowned Asian factories, and are often better quality than the competition in their price range. My Vestax DA has been my reliable back up for years.

Likewise, a more expensive carved copy by a recognized artisan makes sense to me as well (though at that price range I'd personally rather just buy a Heritage or Campilone.

i think the turn off even for those of us who have purchased previous copies is the amount of obvious BS coming from the current company.

I have a D'A semi-hollow (not one of the copies) so I'm not sure if that qualifies me to comment, but ... In the end, it's just a different flavor of BS from what most other companies spew. Just like with Gibson or Fender, it's best to ignore the BS and judge the instruments for what they are. I'm very happy with my D'A. I did find the article pretty silly.

John

[Jehu]

New spiel. Pisani has given up on the "scanned it (the original D'Angelico) under an MRI to study the insides" line which someone pointed out was ridiculous as MRI requires that the object contain water.

Not to mention that if there was any metal on or in the guitar, that precious original D'A would be a pile of splinters!

[iim7V7IM7]

They more likely use tomography, which while it can accurately describe the geometry; it will tell you nothing about the stiffness of that set of wood, nor the player John was making it for...

Not to mention that if there was any metal on or in the guitar, that precious original D'A would be a pile of splinters!

[Patrick2]

They more likely use tomography, which while it can accurately describe the geometry; it will tell you nothing about the stiffness of that set of wood, nor the player John was making it for...

That would assume that they are even using anything at all . . other than rulers to measure dimensions. Their claims about using advanced technology could be just as much BS as everything else in the advertisment piece.

I'm sure they are building a very nice replica . . . and I'm sure there are some who will buy it. But, given how many I saw hanging on the wall in that NYT article . . I'm also sure they won't have nearly enough takers at those price points, and will eventually have to drop their prices considerably.

[DRS]

Maybe a blowout like the last round of Korean D'As.
As far as lam Korean archtops go, the new D'A EXL 1 is a nice guitar. I played one unplugged and it was flawless. But then it was no better than my old Aria FA71 which I can get all day long for $500. So $699 new would be nice.

[Woody Sound]

I must say, I REALLY prefer this headstock to the elaborate scrolley ones on the production models.

D'Angelico Vintage New Yorker Archtop Acoustic Electric Guitar Sunburst | eBay

[fws6]

Yes, perhaps you noticed that the people at Eastman liked it too, and copied that headstock for their guitars